I'm for one getting f'n tired of the lack of tire sizes available. 16s are the next size to lose good hi performance tire sizes. I just looked up bridgestones re11 the replacement for the re01r and I cant even get a 245 in 16. This is getting f'n stupid. It seems there is a real nich market for a company who starts providing wide tires for 13 14 15 16 and even 17 now.

All these new throw away plastic junk cars use wheels bigger than a steem roller so why make tires for the rest of us. Look at me 19inch wheekls on ma gangsta dodge! Sur emy wheels weigh 800lbs, but I gots size with on offset.

At one time, 195/60-14 was an extremely common tire size. 185/60-14 was the most common, and there were some 205/60-14 tires for high performance models. Now, a few 185s, one or two 195s, and no 205s.

Tire size availability follows new car equipment, and someone had decided that they can only sell a car with a 17+ inch wheel, and a 255+ width tire.

The news headlines may be telling us that everyone is trading in their Hummers for Kei cars, but the reality is very different. Chrysler continues to push back the North American release of the Fiat, leaving them with NO small car offering, while they release a newer, bigger, heavier Durango/Grand Cherokee. And Chrysler did not file for bankruptcy, GM did that and GM has small cars to sell. Make no mistake, SUVs are still selling well, and huge wheels with huge diameter tires are big sellers.

Meanwhile, the "small" cars continue to get bigger. The New Mini is not mini. Scion's are bigger than 80's cars, and the IQ release in North America has been pushed back again. The Mazda 2 is bigger than 80's cars. Hyundai's new campaign is "You must shake your brainwashed belief that you must have a small car and buy the new, bigger Elantra".
More importantly, small cars are no longer built for maximum fuel economy. Smaller diameter wheels and narrower tires weigh less and consume less energy to turn in a circle. But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.

One of the recent TV programs had an interview:
"How come my 1975 Civic got 50 MPG, and I can't buy a new Fit that gets better than 40 MPG? Where is all the technological progress, or did we loose the ability to build fuel efficient cars at some point?"
The answer being that a 1975 Civic was built for fuel economy, with small and light weight moving parts (as in small wheels and tires). And the FIT is built to haul around four 400+ pound passengers on bling wheels and stupidly wide tires.

If car companies were serious about making fuel efficient vehicles, whey would be looking at 1970's cars and land speed record cars for inspiration. Narrow and light weight wheels and tires. More sidewall and less metal. Smaller diameter tires. And those of us who continue to drive cars that are actually fuel efficient, would have no problem finding tires in the right sizes.

But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.

But you can't buy a compact car with a wheel smaller than 16 inches, or a tire narrower than 8 inches, no matter how silly the tiny 9 inch brake rotor (or even worse a drum) looks in the huge space within the body of the wheel.

The Mazda2 rolls on 15s.

You're right, and 185/55-15 tires.
But it's 100 HP, 10 inch disks on the front, and 8 inch drums on the rear, and weighs 2,400 pounds. 14x5.5 wheels would be appropriate for that vehicle if it were 130 HP. 13 inch would match the power level and might fit. The stock 15 inch would work better with 160 HP, and only if you were going to flog the heck out of it, other wise it's overkill.

I actually really like the Mazda 2. It's 4 inches too tall to be acceptable in stock form (7 inches taller than ideal). It would be nice in a two door lift back. The rear axle is beam axle, 1980's technology whose best use is holding down a trash can. But looking at it I was thinking it might make a good chassis for my engines, once the bodies of my cars rust away to dust. And I was probably the only person at the show walking between the RX8 and the 2, trying to figure out if the Rotary would fit in the 2.

But think about the kind of mileage numbers these cars would get if someone actually equipped them for economy, with 165 width tires, no lead lined cup holders, none of the air conditioned center consoles, no 50 way power seats, etc. Volk even introduced a new range of ultra light weight Eco wheels in smaller diameters and narrower widths, so there is a niche that the car manufacturers are not filling with their original equipment.

In early 1995 I took my 1991 SE-R to a Dunlop dealer to replace the original 185/60-14 Dunlop Sports, or whatever they were called. The owner of the shop commented on how "large" those tires were for such a small car. I probably still have the receipt...

I was looking at ordering 15x10/15x11 Works for my Datsun and ran into this tire problem. For me I plan on a stretch/slammed look anyhow, but it'd be nice to have it somewhat function (i.e., 255/265 vs 225)

And Chrysler did not file for bankruptcy, GM did that and GM has small cars to sell.

Chrysler did not file for bankruptcy??? Your kidding right.

Rephrasing:
Chrysler's financial situation did not result in Chrysler being owned outright by the US Federal Government, the president of the United States being the de facto corporate executive officer of the company, and an unjustified witch hunt against their main rival, a foreign corporation who have been exonerated of all accusations of computer programming problems in the sudden acceleration fiasco, though the foreign company is still on the hook for 16 million dollars for a problem that did not exist. That would be GM.

Chrysler finally has the Fiats to show, but not to sell.
The new Fiat is just as much a farce as the New Beetle. The appearance of the original was dictated by the function of the machine, a rear engine. The new vehicles are a skin of the original over a much larger FWD chassis.
A majority of Chrysler's auto show displays are trucks and giant SUVs. The same for GM. Toyota's display at the largest NA show once again spotlighted their NASCAR participation and their large truck towing capacity above all other aspects of their product line.
People may be talking about fuel economy, but they buy and drive trucks.

40 years of progress in materials technology negates any and all argument of weight gain due to safety requirements. They didn't have carbon fiber available when they built the first generation Civic, and they do now. Weight is a function of the crap they put in cars now: rear seat DVD players, blue tooth receivers, motorized seats, etc.
The same for tires, radial technology allows less weight and less roll resistance. But wheels are still made out of metal, and if more of the circle is occupied with metal instead of rubber, the weight goes up quick. Added wheel width ads even more weight. And lower profile tires weigh more due to the need for stiffer sidewalls and additional structure to prevent the wheel from being damaged when the car encounters a pothole.